Do you support the second amendment?

[SuperLuigi]

99% of the time I have to explain this, it means the debate is over and it’s just an excuse for someone to keep arguing without substance.

I think I’m going to introduce a new policy here: If I have to keep explaining what logical fallacies are, I’m just not going to talk to you anymore. It’s just a complete waste of time to talk to those who don’t understand the issues and use logical fallacies including ad hominems like @anikins does supported by @Jamie5

So my parting words are this: YES, Joesph, the nukes argument, among others, is a complete and total strawman. Otherwise, see my comments on market and cultural forces.

 

[Vonsalza]

Again, I’d really appreciate if someone could attempt to articulate why @Vonsalza’s argument is a straw man. Just because we toss out the accusation doesn’t make it true. Just because we know the names of some logical fallacies does not mean that we can toss out the accusation and expect that the argument is over. Maybe it is a strawman, maybe it’s not. Why do you think it is a straw man? Okay, maybe you think the example of nuclear weapons is too hyperbolic, but he has also listed other types of less extreme weapons that are also limited. Are these also straw men?

He can’t because it’s not. He’s arguing against infringement and THAT’s an example of infringement. One of many.

And he knows that when he realizes that reasonable infringements must be made, it then becomes a subjective discussion where comfortable absolutisms have little purchase.

But if he’d like to focus the discussion on automatic weapons, I’m happy to go there as it’s the next logical “step up” from the assault style semi-autos they’re doggedly defending. I’m happy to concede that nukes are more than one “step up”. But the concept remains the same - reasonable infringement.

The best option they have is to cry off of the discussion with vague dismissals and demurrals such as:

see my comments on market and cultural forces.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

A person could fully believe in the need for the second amendment while also believing in the need for gun regulation.

Correct, and the US already has a ton of gun regulation and people generally support a good deal of it. For example, most people agree with not letting mentally ill people buy guns, with limitations on shooting off guns in a populated area, and other common sense rules. However, while these laws may have a good effect in stopping all kinds of tragedies that don’t occur because of the law, the media does not report tragedies that don’t occur, only those that do.

The next step is invariably calls for more regulation, despite the fact that more regulation may not have done anything to stop the particular tragedy in a particular case. One other thing to consider is that the US system of government does not operate to “take care of” the general public as governments traditionally do in Europe. People are supposed to get a lot of their protection via the private market, for example through lawsuits. It’s not all that easy for the Feds to just cruise in and regulate something.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

And yet people suggested that if more people were armed they could have done exactly that.

 

[Joe_5859]

99% of the time I have to explain this, it means the debate is over and it’s just an excuse for someone to keep arguing without substance.

I suppose that’s what I’m trying to avoid: a conversation that goes in circles without making any forward progress.

I know what logical fallacies are. I think many here do. I don’t always think people properly identify them, though.

So let’s ignore all of the other examples cited and go with this one:

You can’t buy a fully automatic rifle,

I don’t even know enough about guns to know whether or not this is true. But assuming it is, I think this example alone illustrates the main point being made: restrictions already exist on certain types of guns, so let’s have a conversation about whether or not restrictions should be placed on other types of guns.

Where is the strawman there?

 

[phil19034]

I do not own a gun, and perhaps I never will. If I ever purchase anything, it would most likely be a compound bow and arrow. I personally don’t like guns.

My brother, who used to be an MP in the Air Force and who is active in the National Guard owns a hand gun and an AR-15. He might even have more. Scares me because I know how he was as a kid.

However, his feelings as well as many others is that he needs them to protect himself. I would respond to him ok, I understand the hand gun, but why the AR-15? He said he needs that to protect himself against the US Federal Govt and/or Communist Revolution.

In his view and the view of many others, if there is ever another Civil War the civilians need to armed in order to fight it. Many believe that the second amendment is the only thing protecting people in the United States from the Communists from taking over.

I used to think that argument was paranoia, but now I think there really is potentially another civil war coming.

The communist left is no longer in hiding. They are becoming more and more bold, and young people today are not being taught that communism and socialism are evil (which they are).

Our Catholic faith is being attacked in the US. It’s now at the point where Democrats in the US Senate are publicly using the Catholic faith as a reason to discredit someone from public office. They are trying to bring back the anti-Catholic laws of the 1700s and 1800s.

In regards to this Las Vegas shooter, taking away guns would not have mattered. If he had not guns, he would have used bombs. He was already building explosives. It would have been just like the Boston Marathon bombing. Taking guns away doesn’t protect people because criminals will always find ways to kill people.

The only thing taking guns away does is it makes it makes it easier for the communists to take over.

Also, many people feel that having guns is important if our power gird is ever attacked and we are sent back to the 1600s. Because we no longer have ample hunting grounds near our cities, which would allow urban people to hunt for food, it would be horrific if we lost our power gird. Preppers believe that having guns will keep them and their loved ones safe from thieves, just like guns were used by settlers in the Wild West to protect against criminals.

In closing, as someone who doesn’t like guns, every time I think about this, I start thinking it might be time to buy a gun.

God Bless

 

[Sy_Noe]

the second amendment wasn’t written because of the type of weapons available at the time. That is actually irrelevant to the second amendment. The whole point of the second amendment was to allow the population to defend themselves against their own government should the need arise.

Good luck with that. Stock up on any ranks and nuclear bombs recently? Rolling my eyes.

 

[phil19034]

SuperLuigi:

99% of the time I have to explain this, it means the debate is over and it’s just an excuse for someone to keep arguing without substance.

I suppose that’s what I’m trying to avoid: a conversation that goes in circles without making any forward progress.

I know what logical fallacies are. I think many here do. I don’t always think people properly identify them, though.

So let’s ignore all of the other examples cited and go with this one:

You can’t buy a fully automatic rifle,

I don’t even know enough about guns to know whether or not this is true. But assuming it is, I think this example alone illustrates the main point being made: restrictions already exist on certain types of guns, so let’s have a conversation about whether or not restrictions should be placed on other types of guns.

Where is the strawman there?

The question is: why do people feel they need AR-15s in the first place? If it’s just for sport, I agree, take them away. But most have them because they believe it helps to protect them and this country from a tyrannical govt and/or a communist revolution.

Regardless of what liberals might say, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to allow people to hunt. It was to allow people to take up arms against the federal govt if it ever became tyrannical, just like the founders did against the British.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Regardless of what liberals might say, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to allow people to hunt. It was to allow people to take up arms against the federal govt if it ever became tyrannical, just like the founders did against the British.

Better nab yourself plenty of tanks and nukes and all the firepower governments have in the 21st century.

 

[Vonsalza]

vsedriver:

the second amendment wasn’t written because of the type of weapons available at the time. That is actually irrelevant to the second amendment. The whole point of the second amendment was to allow the population to defend themselves against their own government should the need arise.

Good luck with that. Stock up on any ranks and nuclear bombs recently? Rolling my eyes.

Back in college days (when I was a zealous Reagan-ite conservative) we discussed this a lot.

WMDs damage infrastructure and regional productivity too much, so they’re generally not likely to be used. It was probably the advent of the modern tank that made modern rebellion a far more difficult proposition.

I don’t care how many of your buddies you enroll in your AR-15 toting militia, you’re not going to do anything about the Abrams Main Battle Tank they plop in the mouth of your neighborhood.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Think about this: At the time of the American revolution Britain was the most powerful military empire on Earth. And being the most powerful military empire on Earth, it would be fairly safe to say the British soldiers carried state-of-the-art military grade weapons. And those state-of-the-art military grade weapons were… MUSKETS!

The American Colonists fought against the British; also with muskets. Ergo, one could say that these American private citizens also owned military grade weapons.

So yeah, the people need AR-15s and the like to ensure freedom and keep the government in check.

-LS

 

[Vonsalza]

Think about this: At the time of the American revolution Britain was the most powerful military empire on Earth. And being the most powerful military empire on Earth, it would be fairly safe to say the the British soldiers carried state-of-the-art military grade weapons. And those state-of-the-art military grade weapons were… MUSKETS!

The American Colonists fought against the British; also with muskets. Ergo, one could say that these American private citizens also owned military grade weapons.

So yeah, the people need AR-5s and the like to ensure freedom and keep the government in check.

-LS

Our weapons were usually crappier.

The Brits lost because of the enormous logistical lag between 1700s America and 1700s London, England. If our two countries were half as far apart, we’d likely still be greeting each other with “God Save the Queen/King!”

 

[po18guy]

In Oklahoma City, fertilizer killed 168. No one cried out for fertilizer control. Or rental truck control.

Local man Theodore Bundy killed a self-estimated 100.

Local man Gary Ridgway killed 49.

Known US serial killers took at least 3,074 lives, very rarely using firearms.

The simple fact is that our culture and our world is producing a record number of murderers.

Look at the rest of the world: murderers and serial killers galore.

 

[Vonsalza]

In Oklahoma City, fertilizer killed 168. No one cried out for fertilizer control. Or rental truck control.

Local man Theodore Bundy killed a self-estimated 100.

Local man Gary Ridgway killed 49.

Known US serial killers took at least 3,074 lives, very rarely using firearms.

The simple fact is that our culture and our world is producing a record number of murderers.

Look at the rest of the world: murderers and serial killers galore.

You’ll never eliminate the murderous random vector. Truly.

But you can make it more difficult to be murderous, as the Aussies have proven in spades.

 

[Joe_5859]

In regards to this Las Vegas shooter, taking away guns would not have mattered. If he had not guns, he would have used bombs. He was already building explosives. It would have been just like the Boston Marathon bombing. Taking guns away doesn’t protect people because criminals will always find ways to kill people.

I see this type of argument a lot, but I question how strong of an argument it is.

First, it is speculative at best. We cannot really know for sure what this guy would have done had he been forced to utilize other means. Maybe he would have. Or maybe he would have found it too much of a hassle. Maybe the alternate means he chose would have been even more deadly. Or maybe it would have been much less deadly.

Second, this line of argumentation could be used to argue for no regulations on any weapons whatsoever. It becomes us just sort of shrugging our shoulders and saying that people are always going to find ways to kill other people ever since Cain slew Abel, so what’s the point of trying to deter them?

Certainly, we cannot stop every person intent on killing others from carrying out their plans. That will never be possible. But our laws and regulations do make a difference. So we should not be afraid to take an honest look at what differences can be made for the better.

I understand that many are skeptical of the standard “liberal” talking points. That’s fine. I don’t really believe that the loudest voices on the left have the solution to the problem anymore than do the loudest voices on the right. But surely we can take some positive steps towards limiting the ability of those who are most likely to commit these crimes from getting their hands on that which can bring about such high loss of life. Again, I don’t pretend to know what those steps are. But I don’t think we need to get defensive about asking such questions.

 

[Joe_5859]

Regardless of what liberals might say, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to allow people to hunt. It was to allow people to take up arms against the federal govt if it ever became tyrannical, just like the founders did against the British.

And perhaps I am overly naïve in this regard. It is very difficult for me to entertain the possibility that it would actually become an issue in our country in this day and age. I know that countries rise and fall and, historically speaking, our country is still very young and the centuries at least ostensibly stretch before us with many possibilities. And I know that my own limited vantage point living a relatively cushy life (not having lived through war or other such things personally) makes it all the more difficult for me to wrap my head around such possibilities.

But I do find it very difficult to imagine that there will come a time where the citizens of our country will need to rise up in arms against the government. It just doesn’t seem plausible to me. That people out there legitimately believe they need to prepare for such a possibility with the purchase of guns is, quite frankly, utterly foreign to me.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Regardless of what liberals might say, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to allow people to hunt. It was to allow people to take up arms against the federal govt if it ever became tyrannical, just like the founders did against the British.

Better nab yourself plenty of tanks and nukes and all the firepower governments have in the 21st century.

I also said against communist revolutionaries … like ANTIFA. But, as I also stated, I don’t own a gun.

But you jest, but look how successful gorilla armies are against govts. Also, so far, no govt has dropped a nuke on their own rebels. Chemical weapons yes, nukes no. It’s doesn’t make tactical sense to use a nuke against your own cities because you can’t live in them afterwards.

Furthermore, if there was ever another civil war against the federal govt, there would be military defectors fighting against the federal govt who would steal tanks and other military gear.

God please forbid this from ever happening, but I fear it might. Groups like ANTIFA are saying a war is coming… I pray it never comes to that.

God Bless

 

[po18guy]

The question above all questions: Is freedom now too dangerous for our society?

Does any one of us have a responsibility to note aberrant behavior, evaluate it as best we can, and make proper notifications?

Passing laws which control only those who would never violate that law seems, well…

We should/must allow our passions and emotions to be in check when deciding personal and societal freedom.

Did you ever discipline your children well when you were emotional?

 

[phil19034]

Think about this: At the time of the American revolution Britain was the most powerful military empire on Earth. And being the most powerful military empire on Earth, it would be fairly safe to say the British soldiers carried state-of-the-art military grade weapons. And those state-of-the-art military grade weapons were… MUSKETS!

The American Colonists fought against the British; also with muskets. Ergo, one could say that these American private citizens also owned military grade weapons.

So yeah, the people need AR-15s and the like to ensure freedom and keep the government in check.

-LS

The British also had cannons.

Keep in mind that they that by 1806, the British had military rockets (missiles) in widespread use… so their military was not primitive as you may think.

Plus they were trained in combat, something that farmers typically were not.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Regardless of what liberals might say, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to allow people to hunt. It was to allow people to take up arms against the federal govt if it ever became tyrannical, just like the founders did against the British.

And perhaps I am overly naïve in this regard. It is very difficult for me to entertain the possibility that it would actually become an issue in our country in this day and age. I know that countries rise and fall and, historically speaking, our country is still very young and the centuries at least ostensibly stretch before us with many possibilities. And I know that my own limited vantage point living a relatively cushy life (not having lived through war or other such things personally) makes it all the more difficult for me to wrap my head around such possibilities.

But I do find it very difficult to imagine that there will come a time where the citizens of our country will need to rise up in arms against the government. It just doesn’t seem plausible to me. That people out there legitimately believe they need to prepare for such a possibility with the purchase of guns is, quite frankly, utterly foreign to me.

I used to agree with you 100%. But now, I’m not so sure. But what I fear more than having to fight the military is needing to fight off a radical domestic rebellion. I’m sure the Russians before World War II never thought that by 1919 their govt would be overthrown by a radical coup of communists.

Actually, no one believed the Blessed Mother’s warnings about Russia until after communist revolution because everyone saw Russia as “Holy Russia” even though it was Orthodox and not Catholic.

The ONLY thing that makes a coup harder in the United States is that we are a Federation. So communists would have to take control of every state, and every state has it’s own national guard.

But that doesn’t mean a coup couldn’t happen here in the United States and actually split the US into two different nations (Blue vs Red).

However, with that said, I’m actually more fearful of a civil war starting from grassroots revolution rebelling against the Federal Govt and/or State Govts. Such a civil war would make us a prime target for invasion by ISIS, etc.

I know that I should not be afraid, but I also know that people who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it. The Roman Empire crumbled because corruption made them too weak to fight external threats. And it wouldn’t be a stretch for something similar to what happened in Russia to happen here.

Though I pray it will never happen.